Both accused & accuser deserve justice
These are the words of Justice Cardozo: "The law, as we have seen, is sedulous
in maintaining for a defendant charged with crime whatever forms of procedure
are of the essence of an opportunity to defend. Privileges so fundamental as to
be inherent in every concept of a fair trial that could be acceptable to the
thought of reasonable men will be kept inviolate and inviolable, however
crushing may be the pressure of incriminating proof. But justice, though due to
the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be
strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true."[1]
This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of
justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that
there is strong evidence of guilt. It is not enough that questions, even if
characterized as "searching" ones, were asked by the judge before bail was
granted. Such fact of conduct of searching questions does not cure the
infirmity in the grant of bail.[2]
This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of
justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that
there is strong evidence of guilt. It is not enough that questions, even if
characterized as "searching" ones, were asked by the judge before bail was
granted. Such fact of conduct of searching questions does not cure the
infirmity in the grant of bail.[2]
In the case of People v. Sola,[3] The Supreme Court found it more
than justifiable to cancel the bail bonds because bail was granted to the
accused by the judge without hearing the prosecution. The High Court said
that such an act by the judge would be to disregard the authoritative
doctrine enunciated in People v. San Diego.[4]
As pointed out by Justice Capistrano, speaking for the Court: "The
question presented before us is, whether the prosecution was deprived of
procedural due process. The answer is in the affirmative. We are of the
considered opinion that whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is
in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in
the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it
may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for
bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil
action, the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would
be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court
granting bail should be considered void on that ground."[5]
[1] Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122 (1933).
[2] Cf. Inocencio v. Alconcel, G.R. No. 55658, February 5, 1981.
[3] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/gr-no-56158-64-march-17-1981.html.
[4] L-29676, December 24, 1968, 26 SCRA 522.
[5] Id.